First. His first trouble is about the whole christian world being in the dark, if our position is true. This expression, “the whole christian world,” must be simmered down a little. We strike out of it, then, all the christians of the first two centuries, as not in the dark, for they held and practiced nothing but immersion for baptism. This is sufficient, if we could say no more. But we add to this all Baptists of modern times, who have not been in the dark on this point. No fact is better authenticated than that for the first thirteen centuries immersion was invariably practiced by all professed christians, except, after the third century, in cases of extreme weakness, where they thought immersion could not be endured, they decided that affusion would do; but these could never hold office in the church. Even the Episcopalian church, in the time of Mr. Wesley, almost invariably immersed. Now sum up all these, and then decide how large the number in the dark, and you will find that the sprinklers are a mere drop in the bucket.
Second. The above shows that they have not possessed much the greater share of learning, but much the smaller share of learning.
Third. The christian fathers, so called, are not to be entered in that list. They were on the other side, and practiced immersion and nothing else. The remark of the Cyprian shows that he is defending something new and in doubt; hence his remark that “it is of equal validity with the laver of salvation.” There was no doubt about what he calls “the laver of salvation,” but there was doubt about sprinkling. The one needed argument and the perversion of the passage in Ezekiel to support it; the other was universally acknowledged.
We admit that the evidence is abundant “that pouring and sprinkling were used” from the beginning of the fourth century not only to the rise of the Anabaptists, but till now; but that pouring and sprinkling were held in doubt, in general, and utterly repudiated by many, is equally abundantly proved. The discovery that baptizo means immerse, and nothing else, could not have been made by any of the fathers, for at that time no one denied that such was its meaning. In the few instances where sprinkling or pouring was used, it was not on the ground that baptizo meant pour or sprinkle, but on the ground that pouring or sprinkling would do in extreme cases of weakness where they deemed the persons unable to endure immersion. No man can produce one scrap of authority to show that any man at that early period, or for many long centuries after, ever attempted to defend pouring or sprinkling on the ground that baptizo meant pour or sprinkle. Those who practiced sprinkling or pouring generally in the early ages, did not think they were doing what the Lord commanded, or what the apostles practiced, but something else that would do. Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Clarke, admitted that the ancient practice was immersion, but they thought sprinkling or pouring would do. This was the ground of argument for many long centuries. The idea of trying to prove that any person was ever sprinkled or poured upon, for baptism, in the time of the apostles, is a mere modern invention, and the idea that baptizo means sprinkle or pour, is of equal modern date. These are new grounds altogether, taken by modern men, who have been driven from the old ground. It will not do in our time to admit—as all the ancients did—that the apostles immersed—that immersion was the ancient practice—that baptizo means immerse, and nothing else, but that “this rite has been changed somewhat,” and that something else will do as well. This is too barefaced for our time, and the opposition have changed their ground, and are now trying to make us believe that their practice is sustained by the meaning of baptizo and the ancient practice.
[SHORTER CATECHISM
FOR UNIVERSALIANS.]
DURING our discussion in Decatur, Ill., we presented the following, substantially, as the “Shorter Catechism” for Universalians to test their pretences to a belief in the Scriptures:
1. Phil. iii. 18, 19, Paul, speaking of the enemies of the cross of Christ, says, “Whose end is destruction.” Can a man of sense believe that the end of a man is destruction, and at the same time believe that his salvation? The end of a man will certainly be his last state, and if that is destruction, his end can not be salvation.
2. Mark iii. 29, the Lord says, he who shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, “hath never forgiveness.” Can a man of sense believe that a man who “hath never forgiveness,” shall be saved? To save a man without forgiveness, would be to save him in his sins.